Ai 

0 
0 

oi 
1 1 

4i 
61 

n 


The  Origin  of  the  Episcopate 


An  Historical  Analysis 


By 
JOHN  HOWARD  MELISH 

Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
Brooklyn.  New  York 


ISjSe 


Published  by 

The  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  Evangelical  Knowledge 

1916 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  EPISCOPATE. 


The  birth  of  all  historical  institutions 
is  lost  in  the  golden  haze  of  legend. 
Only  by  historical  criticism  have  men 
been  able  to  discriminate  between  fable 
and  fact,  and  behold  the  cradle  of  the 
new  life.  If  the  nimbus  has  faded  from 
the  head  of  Romulus  no  less  have  the 
myth  of  the  papacy  and  the  legend  of 
the  episcopate  dissolved  in  the  clear 
light  of  modern  scholarship.  Institu- 
tions are  born  and  grow  to  maturity 
before  they  attempt  to  explain  them- 
selves or  justify  their  existence.  Papal 
infallibility  was  an  accepted  belief 
before  Pius  IX  declared  it  a  dogma 
necessary  to  salvation,  and  a  century 
and  more  before  Cyprian  advanced  his 
famous  theory  of  the  episcopate,  the 
office  of  a  bishop  was  established  in 
the  Church. 

The  Church,  according  to  the  Catholic 
theory,  is  a  society  of  living  men  which 
resembles  other  societies  in  that  it  has 
rules,  officials  and  observances,  but 
is  different  from  all  other  societies  in 
that  it  embodies  certain  supernatural 
dogmas  and  a  divinely  authorized 
government.  On  the  sea  of  the  world 
are  many  ships  but  only  one  is  the  ark 
of  the  new  covenant  of  Jesus  Christ,  the 
new  Noah,  built  with  his  own  hands, 
and  manned  by  an  elect  crew  to  rescue 
the  lost  and  carry  them  safely  through 
the  flood  to  the  shores  of  eternity.1  In 
a  general  sense  the  Church  is  all  those 
within  this  ark,  clerical  and  lay;  but 
in  common  usage  the  Church  is  the 
crew  of  the  ark,  that  is,  the  sacerdotal 
and  hierarchical  order  which  was 
divinely  established.  There  are  actually 
two  churches  in  the  Church,  the  one 
teaching  and  governing,  the  other 
taught  and  governed.  It  is  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  that  distinguishes 
the  true  society  from  all  other  societies. 
This  government  is  not  developed  from 

JTertullian. 


below,  according  to  the  law  which 
decrees  that  every  collection  of  indi- 
viduals shall  organize  themselves;  it 
is  on  the  contrary,  superimposed  from 
above,  it  is  a  creation  of  God. 

When  one  examines,  in  the  light  of 
history,  this  imposing  claim  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  held  in  modified  forms 
by  the  High  Churchmen  of  all  denomi- 
nations, he  is  driven  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  divinely  authorized  govern- 
ment is  autochthonous.  It  is  possible 
to-day  to  trace  in  outline  every  stage 
of  the  growth  of  the  organization  of 
the  Church,  and  to  ascertain  some  of 
the  forces  which  were  at  work  trans- 
forming the  community  of  the  Apos- 
tles into  the  institution  of  the  bishops. 

Since  the  discovery  in  1873  of  the 
Didache  or  Teachings  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles  and  its  first  publication  in  1883, 
scholarship  has  possessed  the  key  which 
unlocks  the  understanding  of  the  early 
Church.  In  what  follows  I  shall  at- 
tempt to  picture  the  organization  of  the 
Church  at  the  transition  moments  in  its 
early  development,  when  one  form  was 
giving  way  to  a  subsequent  and  different 
form. 

I. 

With  the  spread  of  Christianity  from 
Jerusalem  into  the  cities  of  the  Medi- 
teranean  world,  a  two-fold  problem  of 
organization  was  forced  upon  the  fol- 
lowers of  Jesus.  The  local  community 
of  believers  had  to  be  held  together, 
in  the  one  case,  and,  in  the  other,  the 
various  local  communities  had  to  be 
united.  The  first  picture  of  the  organi- 
zation which  we  have  shows  a  two-fold 
administration ;  one,  a  ministry  of  the 
general  church  and  the  other  a  ministry 
of  the  local  community. 

In  the  ministry  of  the  church  at  large 
were  three  classes  of  officials,  known 


as  apostles,  prophets  and  teachers.  The 
common  assumption  that  the  office  of 
an  apostle  was  limited  to  the  original 
twelve  disciples,  is  without  foundation. 
In  Matthew,  Mark,  and  John  "apostle ' 
is  not  a  special  and  distinctive  name 
for  the  inner  circle  of  the  followers  of 
Jesus.1  St.  Paul  calls  himself  an  apos- 
tle of  Jesus  Christ,  and  applies  the 
same  title  to  his  fellow-missionaries 
Barnabas  and  Silvanus,2  and  probably 
also  to  Andronicus  and  Junias.8  The 
twelve  who  were  called  during  the  life 
time  of  Jesus  were  considered  by  St. 
Paul  as  the  front  rank,  and  he  puts  his 
own  apostleship  in  that  class,  but  only 
twice  does  he  confine  the  term  "apostle" 
to  the  twelve.4  He  has  a  wider  concep- 
tion of  the  apostolate  of  which  the 
original  twelve  were  only  the  nucleus. 
The  literature  of  the  second  century 
shows  a  tendency  to  limit  the  title  to 
the  first  apostles  but  it  refers  to  the 
order  itself  as  continuing  to  exist.5. 

The  apostles  were  chosen  by  Christ 
Himself  in  the  first  instance.  "He  made 
twelve  whom  He  also  named  apostles" 
that  they  should  be  with  Him,  and  that 
He  should  send  (  drroorcAAi?)  them  to 
preach  and  have  authority  to  cast  out 
the  demons.  In  this  incident  some  have 
seen  the  institution  of  an  apostolic 
order,  separate  from  all  other  members 
of  the  church  and  constituted  to  act 
as  stewards.7  Such  a  view  is  reached 
only  by  reading  back  into  the  event  the 
institutions  of  a  subsequent  age.  An 
examination  of  all  the  passages  shows 
that  to  the  Twelve  Jesus  assigned  two 
functions;  the  first,  personal  nearness 
to  Himself,  "that  they  should  be  with 
Him" ;  the  second,  a  mission  to  preach 
and  to  heal.  This  divine  commission 
was  for  a  definite  occasion  and  locality ; 
and  this  and  other  uses  of  the  word  lead 

1Harnack,  Expansion  of  Christianity,  Vol. 
11.     1  Cor.  IX:  4  f.  and  Gal.  11:9. 
*1  Thes.,  11:6. 
•Rom.,  XVI:  7. 
•Gal..  1:17;  1  Cor.,  IX:  5. 
•Didachc,  XI:  4-6. 


to  the  conclusion  that  the  term  "apostle" 
was  not  intended  to  describe  the  habit- 
ual relation  of  the  twelve  to  our  Lord 
during  the  days  of  His  ministry. 
Discipleship  not  apostleship,  was  the 
primary  active  function,  so  to  speak,  of 
the  Twelve  till  the  Ascension.  The 
Last  Supper,  when  the  Twelve  were 
"with  Him"  completely  and  separated 
from  all  others,  is  further  proof  that 
the  twelve  were  primarily  disciples. 
"If  they  represented  an  apostolic  order 
within  the  Ecclesia,  then  the  Holy 
Communion  must  have  been  intended 
only  for  members  of  that  order,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Ecclesia  had  no  part  in 
it.  But  if,  as  the  men  of  the  apostolic 
age  and  subsequent  ages  believed  with- 
out hesitation,  the  Holy  Communion 
was  meant  for  the  Ecclesia  at  large, 
then  the  Twelve  sat  that  evening  as 
representatives  of  the  Ecclesia  at  large: 
they  were  disciples  more  than  they  were 
Apostles."8 

After  the  Resurrection  the  apostolic 
mission  was  extended  to  other  nations 
as  well  as  to  the  Jews.  "Ye  shall  be 
my  witnesses  both  in  Jerusalem  and  in  all 
Judea  and  Samaria  and  unto  the  utter- 
most part  of  the  earth."9  The  apostles 
were  also  charged  with  the  task  of  bear- 
ing witness.  When  Peter  suggested  the 
need  of  providing  a  successor  to  Judas 
he  mentions  as  the  one  essential  qual- 
ification the  man's  ability  to  witness  to 
the  Resurrection.  The  records  of  the 
time  between  the  Resurrection  and  the 
Ascension  give  no  other  function  of  the 
apostles.  Their  work  after  the  Ascen- 
sion was  not  in  its  essence  different 
from  before:  they  had  still  to  make 
known  the  Kingdom  of  God  by  words 
and  deeds.  It  is  significant  that  no  new 
act  of  appointment  analogous  to  the 
original  designation  of  the  Twelve  on 
1,  p.  398  f.  cf.  p.  404.  cf.  Hort,  Ecclesia,  Lect 

•i.  e.  missionaries,  men  sent    John,  XIII: 

16  R.  V. 
TGore,    The    Church    and    the    Ministry: 

Chap.  IV. 

'Hort,  Ecclesia :  Lect.  11. 
•Acts,  1 : 8. 


the  mountain  inaugurated  this  new 
stage. 

As  the  Twelve  were  chosen  by  Christ, 
so  it  was  God  who  placed  the  other 
apostles.1  After  the  Ascension  St. 
Peter  suggested  that  the  vacancy  in  the 
Twelve  should  be  filled.  This  sugges- 
tion was  made  to  the  community  of 
believers,  who  we  are  expressly  told 
numbered  about  one  hundred  and 
twenty,  and  "they  put  forward  two".2 
The  choice  was  made  not  by  the  apos- 
tles nor  by  the  community  but  by  lot, 
whidh  in  their  minds  was  equivalent 
to  a  choice  by  God.  "The  lot  fell  upon 
Matthias;  and  he  was  numbered  with 
the  eleven  apostles."3  The  community 
is  there  seen  to  be  both  the  primary 
body  and  the  primary  authority.4  As 
to  the  method  of  divine  appointment  at 
other  times  we  have  a  clear  picture  in 
Acts  XIII.  In  the  church  at  Antioch 
certain  prophets  and  teachers  (Barn- 
abas, Simeon,  Lucius,  Manaen  and 
Saul)  after  prayer  and  fasting,  received 
instructions  from  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
despatch  Barnabas  and  Saul  as  mission- 
aries or  apostles.  In  other  cases  without 
doubt  the  apostles  were  similarly  com- 
missioned. In  the  case  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  some  other  officers  of  the  early 
church,  as  we  shall  see,  they  were 
elected  by  the  community.  But  in  the 
case  of  the  apostles  the  appointment 
was  by  the  Spirit. 

Next  to  the  apostles,  in  our  attempt 
to  picture  the  general  ministry  of  the 
Church,  we  come  to  the  prophets. 
First  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  etc,5 
In  Judaism,  at  that  period,  notwith- 
standing the  common  notion  to  the 
contrary,  were  many  prophets.6  Like- 
wise among  the  Christians  prophets 
were  found.  In  Acts  XXI  we  read  that 
a  prophet  by  the  name  of  Agabus  jour- 
neyed from  Jerusalem  to  Caesarea  ii 
order  to  deliver  to  St.  Paul  a  prophetic 


ii  Cor.,  XII:  28. 

'Acts,  1:23. 

8Acts,  1:26. 

4Hort,  Ecclesia :  Lect.  XIII. 


message.  Prophets  similarly  migrated 
from  church  to  church  as  the  Didache 
shows  very  clearly.7  It  was  the  very 
nature  of  a  prophet  that  he  should  have 
no  appointment  other  than  that  which 
came  directly  from  God,  and  that  he 
should  speak  that  which  was  revealed 
to  him.  The  phrase  "Apostles  and 
Prophets,8  upon  whom  as  a  foundation 
the  Church  is  said  to  be  founded,  is 
commonly  thought  to  refer  to  Old  Test- 
ament prophets.  But  the  context  and 
the  references  to  the  prophets  in  the 
Acts  and  Epistles  show  that  it  is  the 
New  Testament  prophet  who  is  held  in 
such  honor.  Secondly,  in  the  order  of 
importance  next  to  the  apostles,  were 
the  prophets  in  the  early  church. 

High  value  was  attached  to  the 
prophets  since  they  were  thought  to  be 
the  voice  of  God.  In  their  preaching 
and  counsels  they  were  recognized  as 
possessing  absolute  authority.  When 
Ignatius  at  a  subsequent  period  coun- 
selled subjection  to  the  bishop  as  the 
head  of  the  church,  he  was  speaking  as 
a  prophet ;  he  used  the  prophetic  author- 
ity to  degrade  the  office  of  the  prophet 
and  enhance  that  of  the  bishop.  It  is 
not  to  be  thought  that  in  every  case 
the  offices  of  apostle  and  prophet  were 
filled  by  different  men.  On  the  con- 
trary, one  man  might  at  the  same  time 
be  both  apostle  and  prophet.  It  was 
a  difference  of  function  rather  than  of 
office  which  distinguished  the  prophet 
from  the  apostle.  An  apostle  was  pri- 
marily a  witness  to  what  had  been. 
The  prophet  was  the  living  oracle. 
Women  also  were  numbered  among  the 
prophets.  Four  daughters  of  Philip 
the  evangelist  are  called  prophetesses 
in  Acts  XXI,  9,  and  an  heretical 
prophetess  called  Jezebel,  is  referred  to 
in  the  Apocalypse.  Even  after  the 
middle  of  the  second  century  women 
are  still  prominent,  not  only  for  their 


"I  Cor.,  XII:  28. 

6Harnack,  Expansion,  Vol.  1 :  p.  414. 

7Didache,  XI :  3. 

"Ephes.,  11:20. 


4 


position  as  widows  and  deaconesses  in 
the  service  of  the  church,  but  also  as 
prophetesses.1  From  the  begining  of 
the  Church  until  their  suppression  in 
the  conflict  with  Montanism,  the 
prophets  played  an  important  part  in 
the  life  of  the  Christian  community. 
They  spoke  with  the  authority  of  im- 
mediate inspiration,  telling  what  they 
saw  by  spiritual  insight  and  knew  to  be 
true,  even  if  it  had  hitherto  found  no 
utterance.  Theirs  was  the  ministry  of 
the  living  spirit  even  as  the  ministry 
of  the  apostles  was  that  of  tradition. 

Third  in  the  order  of  importance  in 
the  general  organization  as  distinguish- 
ed from  the  local  community  of  the 
Church  came  the  teachers.  "First 
apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers."2  The  chief  credit  for  the 
spread  of  Christianity  may  be  due  to 
the  "teachers".8  After  Paul  and  Peter 
and  John  of  Ephesus  there  are  no  prom- 
inent names  in  the  roll  of  apostles  or 
missionaries.  The  Christian  religion 
was  extended  by  men  whose  names  have 
not  been  recorded.  The  Didache  shows 
that  the  vocation  of  a  teacher  was  held 
in  high  repute  in  the  second  century.4 
In  the  third  century  there  still  existed 
at  Alexandria  an  order  of  teachers  side 
by  side  with  the  bishop,  the  presbyters 
and  the  deacons,  as  we  see  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Origen,  who  as  an  independent 
teacher  had  the  battle  of  his  life  with 
Demetrius,  an  utterly  uneducated 
bishop.  When  the  hierarchy  won  and 
the  "laity"  were  forbidden  from  giving 
addresses  in  the  church,  in  the  presence 
of  the  bishops,  the  order  of  "teachers" 
was  thrust  out  of  the  Church. 

The  teachers  were  not  elected  by  the 
community  but  became  such  probably 
from  personal  choice.5  They  ascribed 
their  office,  however,  to  a  divine  com- 
mand or  charism,  and  were  recognized 
by  the  Church  as  possessing  the  Holy 

1Harnack,  Expansion,  Vol.  II :  p.  228. 
21  Cor.,  XII :  28. 

3Harnack,  Expansion,  Vol.  1 :  p.  441. 
*Didache,   XIII: 2;    XV:  1-2. 


Spirit.  The  early  teachers  were  mis- 
sionaries who  sought  to  set  forth  Christ- 
ianity to  pagans  as  to  catechumens.  It 
was  they,  Harnack  concludes,  who  were 
behind  the  "catholic"  epistles,  which 
hardly  less  than  the  Pauline  epistles 
determined  the  development  of  Christ- 
ianity in  the  primitive  stage.6  The 
mission  of  the  teacher  was  to  explain 
difficulties,  to  meet  the  problems  of  the 
intellect,  to  impart  information.  He 
ministered  to  the  mind  as  the  prophet 
ministered  to  the  spiritual  understand- 
ing. Such  was  Apollos.  The  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  is  an  illustration  of  the 
work  of  the  teacher  in  interpreting  the 
new  religion  in  terms  of  the  old. 
Wandering  from  community  to  com- 
munity and  received  everywhere  with 
the  utmost  respect,  the  teacher  no  less 
than  the  apostles  and  prophets  repre- 
sented Christendom  as  a  whole. 

In  the  general  church  of  the  first 
century  we  thus  see  that  the  men  who 
held  the  positions  of  honor  were  those 
who  spoke  the  word  of  God.  They 
were  divided  into  three  groups,  the  func- 
tions of  which  are  invaribly  kept 
distinct.  First  apostles,  secondly 
prophets,  thirdly  teachers.7  Those 
men  were  not  esteemed  as  officials  of 
an  individual  community,  elected  by  the 
people  to  office  or  appointed  by  some 
unnamed  authority  above  them.  They 
were  honored  as  men  who  had  been 
commissioned  by  God  for  the  Church 
as  a  whole.  There  is  no  evidence  what- 
soever for  the  theory  that  their  office 
was  transmitted  to  them  through  a 
human  channel.  The  Didache,  which 
fills  in  the  picture  which  the  New  Test- 
ament itself  faintly  outlines,  while  con- 
cerned with  testing  their  validity,  falls 
back  upon  no  such  external  test;  it 
reaffirms  the  statement  of  Jesus,  "by 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them." 

'James,  III :  1 ;  Didache,  XIII :  2. 

6Expansion,  Vol.  1 :  p.  429. 
7Expansion,   1 : 420. 


II. 

When  we  turn  from  the  general 
church  to  the  local  community,  we  find 
that  the  picture  of  its  organization 
varies  somewhat  with  the  locality. 
Among  Jewish  Christians,  especially  in 
the  Christian  community  at  Jerusalem, 
the  organization  naturally  resembled  the 
synagogue.  Among  Greek  Christians, 
on  the  other  hand,  as  in  Corinth,  it  is 
said  to  resemble  the  Greek  brotherhoods 
of  the  period.  About  the  year  57  A.  D., 
the  Apostle  Paul  thus  described  the 
organization  of  the  Christian  commun- 
ity at  Corinth.1  "God  hath  set  some  in 
the  church,  first  apostles,  secondly 
prophets,  thirdly  teachers;  after  that 
miracles,  then  gifts  of  healing,  helps, 
governments,  diversities  of  tongues." 
The  first  three  mentioned,  as  we  have 
seen,  are  general  offices,  the  others  are 
local.  These  last  are  called  by  the 
general  name  of  'helps  and  govern- 
ments.' They  were  doubtless  men  who 
kept  order,  helped  in  various  ways  and 
ministered  to  certain  ends.  What  is 
significant  in  this  first  glimpse  we  have 
of  the  ministry  of  the  church  is  the 
entire  absence  of  any  mention  of 
bishops,  presbyters  or  deacons.  The 
community  was  engaged  in  a  variety 
of  activities  but  no  definite  orders 
monopolized  the  works  of  healing  and 
mercy. 

In  the  next  reference  to  the  ministry, 
written  two  years  later  in  his  letter  to 
the  Christians  at  Rome,  we  read, 
"Having  gifts  according  to  the  grace 
that  was  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy 
( irpo<t>-r)Tfiav) ,  let  us  prophesy  accord- 
ing to  the  proportion  of  faith;  or  min- 
istry (  Sia/conav )  let  us  give  ourselves  to 
our  ministry;  or  he  that  teacheth 
(SiSao-Ktov  )  to  his  teaching ;  or  he  that  ex- 
horteth  (  irapai<aXS>v  )  to  his  exhorting ; 
he  that  giveth  (  /ueraSiSov?  )  let  him  do 
it  with  liberality ;  he  that  ruleth 
( 7jy>o-iora//.€vos  )  with  diligence ;  he  that 

n  Cor.,  XII:  28. 
2Rom.,  XII :  6  f. 


showeth  mercy  (eXeoiv)  with  cheerful- 
ness."2 Here  again  no  reference  is  made 
to  the  office  of  a  bishop  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Christian  community  in  Rome. 
The  teacher  is  there,  so  is  the  prophet 
and  the  helper;  there  is  a  general  refer- 
ence to  rulers,  ( Tr/ao-io-ra/xevoi )  and  min- 
isters (Sia/covta)  but  here  also  it  is  the 
work  rather  than  the  man  who  per- 
forms it,  that  is  emphasized. 

It  was  in  63  A.  D.,  in  his  letter  to 
the  Christian  community  at  Philippi, 
that  the  apostle  for  the  first  time  used 
the  name  which  has  been  perpetuated 
in  the  Church.  "To  the  Saints  in  Christ 
Jesus  which  are  at  Philippi  with 
the  bishops  ( eVwr/coTrois )  and  deacons 
(Sia/coVois  )."3  It  is  noteworthy  that 
there  was  in  that  single  community 
more  than  one  bishop  as  there  was  more 
than  one  deacon. 

In  the  earliest  authentic  records  of 
the  Church  this  then  is  the  picture  of 
the  primitive  ministry,  which,  thanks  to 
the  Didache,  stands  out  in  clear  outline. 
The  details  are  wanting  but  scholarship 
has  reached  an  agreement  as  to  the  main 
features  of  the  organization  of  the 
Church  before  the  death  of  St.  Paul. 
The  picture  shows  two  classes  of  min- 
isters. The  one,  consisting  of  apostles, 
prophets,  teachers  is  an  itinerant  min- 
istry, that  went  from  community  to 
community,  and  was  not  localized.  In 
one  man  all  three  of  the  functions  might 
be  united,  as  they  were  in  St.  Paul 
himself,  who  was  an  apostle,  a  prophet 
and  a  teacher ;  or  each  function  might 
be  exercised  by  an  individual.  On  the 
other  hand  we  have  a  picture  of  a  local 
ministry  which  is  subordinate  to  the 
itinerant  ministry.  In  Greek  communi- 
ties these  local  ministers  were  called 
bishops  and  deacons.  It  is  not  on  them, 
however,  that  the  Church  is  founded 
but  on  the  apostles  and  prophets,  "Jesus 
Christ  Himself  being  the  chief  corner 
stone." 

il.,  1:1. 


The  year  64  A.  D.,  marks  the  begin- 
ing  of  the  second  period  in  the  history 
of  the  Church.  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter  and 
perhaps  others  of  the  original  apos- 
tles had  passed  away  and  the  functions 
which  they  performed  necessarily  fell 
to  other  men.  In  the  literature  of  this 
period,  1  Peter,1  James2  and  Epistle  to 
Titus,8  we  see  the  presence  in  positions 
of  prominence  in  the  local  church  of 
presbyters  and  elders.  Whereas  St. 
Paul  in  his  epistles  used  the  words 
bishops  and  deacons  to  describe  the 
men  who  were  prominent  in  the  local 
community,  the  writer  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  uses  the  name  "elder" 
( 7rpe<r/3vT€/xws  ).  He  states*  that  Paul 
appointed  presbyters  in  every  commun- 
ity which  he  founded.  It  is  to  be 
inferred  from  this  that  the  older  men, 
those  who  had  accepted  Christianity  in 
their  youth,  came  to  the  front  in  the 
local  churches  on  the  death  of  the 
apostles.  In  Jerusalem  this  process 
seems  to  have  taken  place  during  the 
life  of  the  apostles.  Barnabas  and  Paul, 
who  went  to  Jerusalem  on  a  question 
of  importance,  are  said  to  have  been 
"received  of  the  church,  and  of  the 
apostles  and  elders."  The  inference  is 
that  men,  not  necessarily  because  of  age, 
were  associated  with  the  apostles  at 
Jerusalem  in  the  government  of  the 
community. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles  reveal  a  further 
stage  of  development  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church  than  that  which  we 
find  in  the  authentic  letters  of  Paul  or 
in  the  Book  of  Acts.  Here  for  the  first 
time  appear  officials  rather  than  un- 
official leaders.  "Presbyters,"  "bishops" 
and  "deacons"  are  fixed  designations 
of  certain  offices.  In  characterizing 
the  local  ministry  of  this  period,  Light- 
foot  says,  "It  is  clear  that  at  the  close 
of  the  apostolic  age,  the  two  lower 
orders  of  the  three-fold  ministry  were 

JV :  1,  4. 
2V:  14. 
»I:5. 
*Acts,  XIV :  23. 


firmly  and  widely  established;  but 
traces  of  the  third  and  highest  order, 
the  episcopate,  properly  so-called,  are 
few  and  indistinct." 5  In  the  general 
church,  as  distinguished  from  the 
organization  of  the  local  community, 
there  was  at  this  period  a  three-fold 
ministry,  apostles,  prophets  and  teach- 
ers. It  was  this  ministry  that  wrote 
the  so-called  catholic  epistles,  of  which 
as  Harnack  says,  there  is  a  genre  in 
literature.8  These  catholic  epistles 
circulated  throughout  the  churches 
and  determined  the  development  of 
Christianity  in  the  closing  decades  of 
the  first  century,  and  at  the  opening  of 
the  second  hardly  less  than  the  Pauline 
epistles.  It  is  to  those  writings  the 
Church  owed  that  degree  of  homoge- 
neity which  the  local  churches  showed. 
We  may  now  finish  this  picture  of 
the  organization  of  the  Church  at  the 
close  of  the  first  century  with  this 
remark.  There  is  a  general  ministry 
and  a  local  ministry.  In  the  collective 
church  are  apostles,  prophets  and 
teachers.  Their  function  is  spiritual: 
the  apostle  preaches  the  word,  the 
prophet  speaks  by  direct  inspiration, 
the  teacher  explains  the  truth  and  in- 
structs. They  received  their  appoint- 
ment at  the  hands  of  no  human  author- 
ity; it  was  the  Spirit  that  set  them 
apart.  Journeying  from  place  to  place 
they  were  listened  to  with  reverence 
and  were  the  chains  which  bound  the 
various  communities  together  in  a 
spiritual  brotherhood.  The  only  ap- 
parent exception  to  this  was  St.  James 
at  Jerusalem  who  sat  in  a  seat  of 
authority.  It  has  been  frequently  in- 
ferred that  there  is  the  monarchical 
episcopate.7  The  more  natural  deduc- 
tion, however,  to  be  drawn  from  that 
unique  fact  is  that  James  was  regarded 
as  the  leader  because  he  was  the  blood 
brother  of  the  Master.  Had  Jerusalem 

6Essay,  last  ed.,  p.  195. 
'Expansion,  1 :  p.  428. 
7Gore,  Ministry. 


not  fallen  it  is  possible  that  Christianity 
might  have  developed  in  the  West  a 
Caliphate  similar  to  Mohammedanism.1 
Below  this  general  ministry  there  was 
in  each  community  a  local  ministry. 
Each  church,  apparently,  had  several 
of  its  older  men,  older  either  in  faith 
or  in  years,  to  whom  it  looked  for  direc- 
tion ;  they  were  called  elders  and  admin- 
istered the  affairs  of  the  community. 
In  some  cases  they  had  been  selected 
by  an  apostle;  in  others  they  may  have 
been  elected  by  the  community;  in 
others  still  they  may  have  been  chosen 
because  it  was  in  their  houses  the 
Christians  met.  Such  men  were  far 
from  being  church  officials,  as  we  think 
of  ordained  ministers.  Under  the  di- 
rection of  those  presbyters  were  other 
men,  sometimes  of  their  number,  some- 
times not,  who  acted  as  treasurers  or 
executive  secretaries.  These  men  were 
known  as  bishops  (  CTTLO-KOTTOI  ')  or  over- 
seers and  deacons  (  SMKOVOI  )  or  helpers. 
In  some  cases  these  administrative  of- 
ficers were  appointed  by  the  presbyters, 
in  other  cases  they  were  selected  by  an 
apostle,  and  in  still  others  they  were 
selected  by  the  community. 

III. 

What  wrought  the  transformation  of 
the  ministry  in  the  succeeding  century, 
by  which  the  subordinate  and  insignifi- 
cant office  of  overseer  was  lifted  from  the 
lowest  to  the  topmost  rung  of  the 
ecclesiastical  ladder?  During  the 
second  century  the  general  ministry  of 
apostles,  prophets  and  teachers  dis- 
appeared, and  was  succeeded  by  the 
local  ministry  of  presbyters,  bishops 
and  deacons.  Two  forces  were  at  work 
effecting  this  transposition.  One  de- 
preciated the  value  of  the  general 
ministry  and  the  other  magnified  the 
importance  of  the  local  ministry. 
Thanks  to  the  Didache  we  have  con- 
siderable light  thrown  on  this  period 
of  transition. 

aAllen,  Institutions. 
2Did.,  XI:  3. 


The  Didache,  a  document  first  pub- 
lished in  1883,  sets  forth  the  teaching 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles  and  was  written 
between  70  and  165  A.  D.  In  its 
picture  of  the  ministry  we  still  see  the 
apostles,  prophets  and  teachers  of  the 
previous  period,  but  at  the  moment 
when  they  are  under  fire  of  criticism. 
The  Didache  enjoins  the  apostles  and 
prophets  to  obey  the  "ordinance  of  the 
Gospel."2  By  that  it  meant  that  they 
were  to  be  penniless,  and  not  to  settle 
down  but  be  ever  extending  the  king- 
dom of  Christ.  Here  we  see  that  the 
order  of  apostles  was  an  order  of  mis- 
sionaries. It  was  in  fact  due  to  that 
heroic  order  of  apostles  that  Christian- 
ity was  so  widely  spread  at  the  begin- 
ing  of  the  second  century.  So  far  as 
historic  knowledge  can  say,  only  St. 
Paul  and  St.  Peter,  and  perhaps  St. 
John,  of  the  original  apostles  spread  the 
Gospel  widely,  the  world  wide  service 
of  the  other  apostles  being  largely 
legendary.  It  is  to  the  order  of  the 
larger  apostolate  that  the  credit  be- 
longs.3 In  the  Didache  we  see  an  at- 
tempt to  regulate  this  apostolate. 
So  high  was  it  in  the  estimation  of  the 
period  that  men  of  doubtful  motives 
sought  to  profit  by  it.  "Let  every 
apostle  who  comes  to  you  be  received 
as  the  Lord.  But  he  shall  not  remain 
more  than  one  day,  or,  if  need  be,  two; 
if  he  remains  for  three  days,  he  is  a 
false  prophet.  But  on  his  departure 
let  the  apostle  receive  nothing  but  bread, 
till  he  finds  shelter;  if  he  asks  for 
money,  he  is  a  false  prophet".4  Similar 
warnings  are  given  in  regard  to  teach- 
ers and  prophets.  This  shows  there 
was  a  questioning  of  the  regularity  of 
those  men  and  an  attempt  to  safeguard 
the  community  against  abuses.  Along 
with  this  regulation  there  are  indica- 
tions of  a  tendency  to  put  the  primitive 
apostles  in  a  unique  place  above  all  the 
disciples  of  succeeding  generations. 
The  name  apostle,  it  was  thought, 

8Harnack,  Expansion,  Vol.  1 :  p.  441. 
«Did.f  XI:  4-6. 


should  be  reserved  only  for  those  men 
who  were  the  first  to  spread  the  Gospel 
to  the  nations. 

This  depreciation  of  the  contem- 
porary general  ministry  magnified  the 
importance  of  the  local  ministry  which 
for  other  reasons  also  was  assuming  a 
clearly  defined  and  vital  place  in  the 
Christian  community.  The  Didache1 
bids  every  local  church  to  appoint 
for  itself  bishops  and  deacons.  Pro- 
vision is  also  made  for  any  community 
which  so  desires  it,  to  receive  a  prophet 
or  teacher  as  a  permanent  local  officer. 
In  that  case  the  teacher  may  settle  down 
and  be  entitled,  by  virtue  of  his  life 
and  teaching,  to  the  support  of  the 
community,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Jew- 
ish priesthood,  "for  they  are  your  high 
priest."  In  cases  where  the  local 
church  elects  its  own  bishops  and 
deacons,  the  Didache  declares  that  these 
elected  officials  shall  take  upon  them- 
selves the  functions  of  prophets  and 
teachers  and  be  honored  as  such.  Here 
we  have  a  glimpse  of  the  ministry  in 
the  period  of  transition,  when  the 
general  ministry  is  breaking  down  and 
the  local  ministry  growing  up.  The 
interest  of  the  Didache  is  that  it  shows 
the  ministry  of  the  apostolic  period 
as  it  is  passing  into  the  catholic 
ministry  of  the  subsequent  period. 

For  the  advocates  of  the  theory  of 
an  original  apostolic  succession,  the 
period  of  the  Didache  is  a  bar  which 
divides  the  harbor  from  the  sea  and  on 
which  many  ships  run  aground.  Even 
so  skillful  a  pilot  as  the  present 
Bishop  of  Oxford  (Gore)  has  wrecked 
his  ship  at  that  point.  It  is  admitted 
that  the  theory  of  an  original  con- 
tinuous succession  of  the  bishops  from 
the  apostles  has  broken  down.2  The 
liberalized  restatement  of  the  theory 
has  attempted  to  show  that  the  bishops 
received  their  authority,  if  not  from 


foundations,  p.  383. 
8Idem.  Note. 


apostles  then  from  apostolic  men,  that  b, 
from  the  itinerant  "prophets  and  teach- 
ers." Such  men,  however,  as  we  have 
seen,  received  their  commission  not  from 
the  original  apostles  or  any  other  human 
agency.  Their  authority  came  from  the 
Spirit  without  any  intermediary  and,  so 
far  as  our  information  goes,  the  principle 
of  their  ordination  is  not  to  be  differ- 
entiated, for  example,  from  the  Irvingite 
"apostles"  of  modern  times.8 

Why,  let  us  now  inquire,  should 
the  functions  of  the  general  ministry 
have  fallen  upon  the  bishops  rather 
than  upon  the  presbyters?  In  the 
absence  of  information  it  was  inferred 
that  the  bishop  (episcopos)  or  superin- 
tendent* was  a  name  conferred  upon 
those  who  succeeded  the  apostles  in  the 
work  of  supervising  the  local  churches. 
Now,  however,  it  has  been  established 
that  the  bishop  (episcopos)  was  the  de- 
signation of  a  subordinate  officer  in  the 
local  community.  The  bishop  was  origi- 
nally the  responsible  financial  officer  of 
the  local  church.  St.  Paul  salutes  the 
bishops  and  deacons  in  his  letter  to  the 
Philippians  because  he  is  writing  to  ac- 
knowledge a  gift  of  money.  Justin 
Martyr  describes  the  bishop  as  the  man 
with  whom  money  or  goods  are  de- 
posited at  the  time  of  the  Eucharist, 
and  who  succored  the  orphans  and 
widows  and  took  care  of  all  who  were 
in  need.5  The  early  Church  considered 
itself  especially  sent  to  minister  to  the 
poor  and  its  membership  chiefly  con- 
sisted of  the  poor.  Widows  and  or- 
phans were  found  in  those  early  com- 
munities from  the  beginning.  They  fed 
their  members  who  were  imprisoned, 
ransomed  them,  when  sold  into  captivity. 
Strangers  who  bore  the  Christian  name 
visited  the  communities  as  they  passed 
along  the  great  routes  of  commerce  in 
both  East  and  West,  either  in  the 
pursuit  of  business  or  driven  by  per- 

4Episcopos  (literally  overseer  or  super- 
intendent). See  Acts,  XX  :  28,  A.  V. 
and  R.  V. 

5Apol.,  IX,  VII. 


secution.  And  they  were  given  hospital- 
ity. Now  it  was  the  bishop  upon  whom 
was  placed  by  the  community  the  duty 
of  caring  for  all  such  members.  He 
had  to  distinguish  between  the  worthy 
and  the  unworthy  applicants  for  help, 
for  the  early  Church  had  its  frauds 
'and  rounders.'  To  secure  against  im- 
posture certificates  of  good  standing 
were  issued,  and  it  was  the  bishop  who 
signed  them.  The  bishop  (episcopos)  was 
treasurer  and  secretary  of  the  local 
church  and  as  such  became  the  pivot  and 
centre  of  its  administration.1  Later 
thought  saw  in  these  important 
positions  a  hierarchy,  but  to  their  con- 
temporaries, Timothy  and  Titus,  Igna- 
tius and  Polycarp  were  able  executive 
secretaries  of  their  respective  associa- 
tions. 

Not  only  was  the  overseer  (episcopos) 
the  responsible  financial  officer  of  the 
local  community  but  he  presided  at  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  That 
function  was  closely  affiliated  with  his 
treasurership,  since  the  offering  of  money 
or  alms  was  made  at  the  moment  when 
the  service  or  worship  of  the  Eucharist 
was  to  be  rendered.  "The  Christian 
festival",  says  Lightfoot,  "both  in  the 
hour  of  the  day  and  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  meal,  was  substantially  a 
reproduction  of  Christ's  last  supper 
with  his  disciples.  Hence,  it  was  called 
the  'Lord's  Supper',  —  a  name  originally 
applied  to  the  combined  Eucharist  and 
agape,2  but  afterward  applied  to  the 
former  when  the  latter  had  been  sep- 
arated or  abolished."3  While  it  was 
still  an  agape,  or  evening  meal,  the 
congregation  sat  at  the  table  and  one 
presided.  When  the  congregation  be- 
came too  numerous  for  this  a  few  were 
chosen,  the  elders'  and  others,  to  sit 
with  the  superintendent  (episcopos)  at 
the  table.  A  dramatization  of  the  last 
supper  was  held  in  place  of  the  reality. 

1Hatch,  Organization  of  the  Early  Church, 
Lect.  11. 


i   love-feast. 
•Lightfoot,  Apos.  Fathers,  Part  II,  Vol. 
1  :  p.  400. 


In  that  representation  the  bishop  (epis- 
copos)  symbolized  Christ  and  the  elders 
His  apostles.  As  the  Lord's  Supper 
grew  in  the  reverence  of  the  Church, 
eventually  the  office  of  the  overseer  rose 
to  supremacy. 

In  these  three  facts,  his  place  as 
financial  officer,  as  distributor  of  relief, 
as  director  of  the  worship,  we  find 
sufficient  explanation  of  the  elevation 
of  the  overseer  (episcopos) .  In  the  early 
age  of  the  Church  men  explained  the  ori- 
gin of  the  office  of  the  bishop,  by  refer- 
ring to  the  Apostle  John.  "The  order  of 
the  bishops,  when  traced  back  to  the 
origin,  will  be  found  to  rest  upon  John 
as  its  author."4  There  was,  however, 
another  tradition  which  held  that  the 
bishops  and  presbyters  were  of  equal 
authority  in  the  beginning  of  Christ's 
religion,  and  that  the  placing  of  the 
bishop  above  the  presbyter  was  an  ec- 
clesiastical arrangement  which  was  made 
in  consequence  of  schisms  and  other  dis- 
orders in  the  churches.5 

This  latter  theory,  first  set  forth  by  St. 
Jerome  (420)  has  been  advocated  in 
recent  times  by  Bishop  Lightfoot.  "The 
episcopate  was  formed  not  out  of  the 
Apostolic  Order  by  localization,  but  out 
of  the  presbyterial  by  elevation,  and 
the  title,  which  originally  was  common 
to  all,  came  at  length  to  be  appropriated 
to  the  chief  among  them."  Later 
scholarship  agrees  with  Lightfoot  that 
"it  is  not  to  the  apostle  that  we  must 
look  for  the  prototype  of  the  bishop," 
but  it  finds  the  origin  of  the  office  in 
the  financial  officer  of  the  local  com- 
munity. Historical  research  has  shown 
that  the  government  of  the  Church,  in 
stead  of  being  superimposed  from 
above,  has  like  every  institution,  de- 
veloped from  below.  This  theory,  which 
the  Pope  has  singled  out  and  condemned 
as  the  very  synthesis  of  all  heresies,8 

4Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  IV :  5. 
5Allen,  Institutions,  p.  7. 
6Tuby   1907   Lamentable   decree   of   Pope 
Pius  X. 


10 


has  won  its  way  into  favor  of  historians 
both  Catholic  and  Protestant. 

This  then  is  the  picture  of  the  organi- 
zation of  the  church  in  the  first  century, 
the  details  of  which  are  wanting,  but  the 
outline  of  which  is  definitely  determined. 
There  are  ranks  of  ministers ;  in  the  first 
were  those  who  preached  the  word. 
God  hath  appointed  first,  apostles, 
secondly  prophets,  thirdly  teachers. 
In  the  second  rank  were  those  who  ad- 
ministered the  affairs  of  the  local  com- 
munity. The  names  of  these  officers 
were  for  a  time  not  fixed,  but  three 
titles  eventually  became  permanent. 
These  titles,  bishops,  presbytefrs,  and 
deacons  stood  from  the  first  for  dis- 
tinct functions.  Moral  instruction  and 
guidance  of  the  young  fell  to  the  presby- 
ters; superintendence  of  the  worship 
and  care  of  the  funds  and  service  to 
the  poor  were  the  responsiblity  of  the 
bishops;  assistance  to  the  bishops  in 
all  such  matters  was  the  task  of  the 
deacons.  In  some  instances  a  presbyter 
may  have  performed  the  functions  of 
the  bishop,  and  then  again  the  bishop 
may  have  fulfilled  the  duties  of  a  pres- 
byter. The  change  came  with  the 
growth  of  the  Christian  communities, 
and  the  new  tasks  which  were  forced 
upon  them  from  without  and  within. 
Gradually  the  local  ministry  assumed 
the  functions  of  the  general  ministry; 
bishops  and  presbyters  became  clothed 
with  the  character  of  apostles,  prophets 
and  teachers.  The  needs  of  the  time 
called  for  administration  and  efficiency 
rather  than  for  charismatic  service. 
All  collective  life  ordinarily  tends  to 
emphasize  organization  and  external 
discipline.  By  the  close  of  the  second 
century  the  transition  was  complete. 
Apostles,  prophets,  teachers  had  disap- 
peared, and  in  the  places  of  supreme 
authority  were  the  administrators  of 
the  church.  Every  step  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  organization  throughout 
the  second  century  is  known.  The 
century  opens  with  the  bishop  repre- 

»Institutions,  p,  208. 


sented  by  St.  Ignatius  as  the  successor 
of  Christ.  It  closes  with  the  bishop 
recognized  as  the  successor  of  the 
apostle.  In  a  space  of  time  a  little 
longer  than  the  entire  history  of  the 
Uuited  States,  the  organization  of  the 
Church  saw  the  rise  of  the  office  of 
bishop  from  the  simple  treasurer  of  the 
local  community  to  the  monarchical 
episcopate  of  Cyprian. 

IV. 

The  new  light  which  historical  criti- 
cism has  thrown  on  the  origin  of  the 
Church's  organization  illuminates  sev- 
eral age-long  controversies,  and  at  least 
one  vital  modern  problem.  There  is  an 
ancient  quarrel  between  Presbyterians 
and  Episcopalians  as  to  which  order  of 
ministers,  presbyters,  or  bishops,  were 
declared  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles  to 
constitute  the  ministry.  But  now,  as 
Dean  Stanley  says,  "that  which  was  once 
the  Gordian  knot  of  theologians  has 
been  untied,  not  by  the  sword  of  perse- 
cution but  by  the  patient  unravelment  of 
scholarship."  "It  is  as  sure  that  noth- 
ing like  modern  Episcopacy  existed  be- 
fore the  close  of  the  first  century  as  it  is 
that  nothing  like  modern  Presbyterian- 
ism  existed  after  the  beginning  of  the 
second."1 

In  the  fierce  controversy  between  Pro- 
testants and  the  Papacy  scholarship 
has  intervened  with  the  proof  which  is 
beyond  dispute  or  refutation,  that  in  the 
early  Church  St.  Peter  held  no  official 
position  of  greater  importance  than  that 
held  by  the  other  Apostles;  that  the 
"head  of  the  Church,"  if  any  one  can  be 
so  designated,  was  St.  James;  and  he 
can  be  so  designated  because  he  was  the 
blood  brother  of  Jesus.  Every  step  of 
the  growth  of  the  See  of  Rome  has  been 
traced  and  is  today  known.  "The  Pope 
is  the  ghost  of  the  deceased  Roman  Em- 
pire, sitting  crowned  upon  the  grave 
thereof."2 

It  is  Congregationalism,  more  than 
any  other  ecclesiastical  polity,  which  re- 

2Hobbes. 


11 


ceives  controversal  advantage  from  the 
result  of  historical  criticism.  Each  com- 
munity of  early  Christians  was  self- 
governing;  each  was  bound  to  other 
communities  not  by  official  ties  but  by 
bonds  of  loyalty  to  common  leaders, 
common  ideas  and  community  of  inter- 
est. The  itinerant  apostles,  prophets, 
teachers  of  the  early  Church,  however, 
gave  a  unity  to  the  general  Church 
which  Congregationalism  has  not  yet 
attained. 

The  problem  of  Christian  Unity  will 
be  met  only  as  the  light  of  historical 
criticism  illuminates  all  the  people  and 
Churches  interested  in  solving  it.  Those 
who  now  assert  that  their  particular 
polity  is  "God-made,"  that  is,  was  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  Himself,  and  must  there- 
fore be  submitted  to  by  all  the  "man- 
made,"  ministries,  have  no  authority 
other  than  their  own  unsupported  and 
unhistorical  dogmas.  It  is  only  when 
they  have  been  liberated  from  the  thrall 
of  their  preconceived  theories  that  they 
will  be  able  to  join  with  the  men  of 
other  churches  in  solving  the  problem  of 
the  unity  of  the  followers  of  Jesus.  "No 


permanent  order  of  ministers  appears  in 
that  spiritual  kingdom  of  which  He 
spoke  on  the  hills  of  Galilee  or  on  the 
slope  of  Olivet."  What  the  Church  has 
become,  it  grew  to  be,  and  what  the 
Church  once  made,  it  can  unmake,  and 
in  its  place  produce  some  order  which 
will  more  effectively  represent  the  unity 
of  Christendom.  Congregationalism 
was  succeeded  by  Presbyterianism,  Pres- 
byterianism  by  Episcopalianism  and 
Episcopalianism  by  the  Papacy.  Or, 
putting  it  in  another  way,  democracy 
was  succeeded  by  aristocracy,  and  aris- 
tocracy by  monarchy,  and  monarchy  by 
imperialism  in  the  administration  of  the 
Church.  Such,  roughly  speaking,  was 
the  development  of  Church  organization. 
May  it  not  be  that  the  Church  of  the  fu- 
ture, instead  of  choosing  any  one  of 
these  conflicting  orders,  will  choose 
them  all,  and  then  unite  them,  by  means 
of  the  principle  of  federalism,  in  some 
splendid  and  organic  whole,  which 
while  it  secures  Unity  at  the  centre  does 
not  destroy  the  liberty  of  the  Parts. 
John  Howard  Melish. 


000014611 


Lansing  ft   Broa§, 

283  Main  St.. 
Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y. 


